Only valid for active forum users. Active means at least 30 postings within the last 30 days (no spam postings). This will automatically being checked at www.starbike.com shopping basket so make sure that you are logged in at the WW board!If there does not appear a WW discount position when you check out you do not have enough postings!

how much longer will rear and front der. be in use, till its replaced by something more efficient, that shifts better under even under the most extreme conditions, how about instant engagement?

what do you guys think will be the next move in cycling. i think Rohloff is a good example - it has a few kinks to be worked out needs to be lightened up, but from all the reviews i have read, and the people i know who have the hub, they say the system is bomb proof. but i am not talking about the hub, there is a modified version that goes in the center of the frame; thus taking the weight off the rear hub and putting it in the center of the bike.

check it out

could this system work for road cycling? i think even now with the extra weight of the Rohloff hub, we can still come in at UCI weight of 15 -15.5 lbs.

here is a pic of a bike that uses the system, it is not a road bike, but just so you get the picture.

What does everyone think, any does anyone think this could work for a road bike? more info for anyone intrested http://www.g-boxx.org/

i think even now with the extra weight of the Rohloff hub, we can still come in at UCI weight of 15 -15.5 lbs

Nah. I have seen the Rohloff. It is a giant pig. Even with all of the other components off of an MTB it weighs a tonne. I think we will see the electric Record way before something more revolutionary...

I had a Rohloff hub for a bit... on a town bike (closer to a road bike than a mtn bike).

My opinion is that no internal hub (Rohloff included) will be useable (on the road) until the ratios are more suited for the application.

Rohloff's ratios are very evenly spaced, but that's not what's required for road riding. As the gear ratio gets "longer", the ratios need to get closer and closer together. The jumps between the top few gears need to be very, very small.

Until someone addresses this, an internal hub (regardless of weight) will never be a practical alternative to what we have now.

i really hope campy bypasses this electronic shifting and get with G-BOXX or make their own standard

I hear you. The problem is that, given the inefficiency of the engine (i.e., us!), there is little to gain from greatly increased mechanical efficiency versus lighter weight (hence this forum), assuming that the system maintains adequate reliability.

The claims that G Boxxers make about mechanical failure of derailleur-based systems belies the fact that it is pneumatic tires that are the leading cause of mechanical failure in road racing and that the rate of failure of modern race components (Dura-Ace, Record) is probably adequate, given the advantage in weight saving.

Additionally, the derailleur-based system IS Campagnolo's own standard.

It's very, VERY difficult to beat a chain for mechanical efficiency. Even having just one or two gear meshes will result in poor efficiency compared to a chain.

IMO, the next step (granted, an evolution, not a revolution) is to get the indexing for the rear derailler *AT* the rear derailler... instead of 5' away at the shifter. That *might* require 2 cables instead of one, but I believe they could be very small. Once the detents are at the derailler, adjustments will be a thing of the past.

uphillisgood wrote:IMO, the next step (granted, an evolution, not a revolution) is to get the indexing for the rear derailler *AT* the rear derailler... instead of 5' away at the shifter. That *might* require 2 cables instead of one, but I believe they could be very small. Once the detents are at the derailler, adjustments will be a thing of the past

Shimano has had a go at this, atleast once, and the Mavic Zap system worked this way as well.